Author
Topic: Schenanigans? (Read 29423 times)

I do agree that when a thread is going along with many people agreeing with one side of the argument, posters are less likely to be the one to jump in and disagree. But then one person has the nerve to do so, and then the rest who've been reading it and thinking the same thing join in.

I'm not sure what else you are implying is occuring when a thread is going one way and then turns another? That it's orchestrated for some reason?

One of the characteristics of Ehell is that people will give you their opinion and they do not sugarcoat it. That doesn't mean members are rude but they are firm and honest in how they see the situation.

If you only want people to agree with you and your position, this isn't a place to post.

Sometimes it needs one person to come out with an opposing opinion to either encourage others to agree or to see the situation from a different point of view.

I think anyone who has been here for any length of time has had people disagreeing with them. It's the nature of this place and I personally think it's much better for it.

How boring would it be if everyone agreed with each other on every thread?

I do agree that when a thread is going along with many people agreeing with one side of the argument, posters are less likely to be the one to jump in and disagree. But then one person has the nerve to do so, and then the rest who've been reading it and thinking the same thing join in.

I'm not sure what else you are implying is occuring when a thread is going one way and then turns another? That it's orchestrated for some reason?

This is what I see, too. I agree that the pattern LadyL described is pretty accurate, but I don't see it as a problem.

I think the problems usually start when comments turn personal, or posters involved in the thread *take* comments personally that weren't meant that way.

I do agree that when a thread is going along with many people agreeing with one side of the argument, posters are less likely to be the one to jump in and disagree. But then one person has the nerve to do so, and then the rest who've been reading it and thinking the same thing join in.

I'm not sure what else you are implying is occuring when a thread is going one way and then turns another? That it's orchestrated for some reason?

This is what I see, too. I agree that the pattern LadyL described is pretty accurate, but I don't see it as a problem.

I think the problems usually start when comments turn personal, or posters involved in the thread *take* comments personally that weren't meant that way.

The written word is easier to misunderstand than the spoken word - there is no non-verbal communication involved, and it is impossible to gauge the intonation in the words. That's where my frustration lies sometimes!

Logged

Knowledge is knowing tomato is a fruit.Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

I do agree that when a thread is going along with many people agreeing with one side of the argument, posters are less likely to be the one to jump in and disagree. But then one person has the nerve to do so, and then the rest who've been reading it and thinking the same thing join in.I'm not sure what else you are implying is occuring when a thread is going one way and then turns another? That it's orchestrated for some reason?

No, more that the tone of a discussion can be easily biased by a minority viewpoint if that view is put forward forcefully enough. I think most people post expecting a range of opinions. When you are only getting feedback reflecting one view, it's either a super rare unanimous thread (snakes!) or there's a bit of a herd mentality going on, with dissenters lurking silently, hesitant to jump in the fray. It can make you question your grasp on not only etiquette but reality itself when it seems like 'everyone agrees' on a position you think is way out there - whether you're the OP or a reader. For me it's helpful to understand the underlying dynamics, because it's easier to sort through what is reasonable, balanced feedback and what is weird internet groupthink.

It reminds me of a friend who used to do product development focus groups for extra money in college - she made a game out of trying to convince the whole group to agree with the most random viewpoint possible, to see who would buy in. She said it was pretty easy to manipulate people this way.

I do agree that when a thread is going along with many people agreeing with one side of the argument, posters are less likely to be the one to jump in and disagree. But then one person has the nerve to do so, and then the rest who've been reading it and thinking the same thing join in.

I'm not sure what else you are implying is occuring when a thread is going one way and then turns another? That it's orchestrated for some reason?

This is what I see, too. I agree that the pattern LadyL described is pretty accurate, but I don't see it as a problem.

I think the problems usually start when comments turn personal, or posters involved in the thread *take* comments personally that weren't meant that way.

The written word is easier to misunderstand than the spoken word - there is no non-verbal communication involved, and it is impossible to gauge the intonation in the words. That's where my frustration lies sometimes!

Well, for sure, I agree. But that's why I think that all comments should be taken to be non-personal, i.e. they should be interpreted in the best possible light. It's the nature of internet forums that you only have what's on the screen to go by.

I do agree that when a thread is going along with many people agreeing with one side of the argument, posters are less likely to be the one to jump in and disagree. But then one person has the nerve to do so, and then the rest who've been reading it and thinking the same thing join in.

I'm not sure what else you are implying is occuring when a thread is going one way and then turns another? That it's orchestrated for some reason?

This is what I see, too. I agree that the pattern LadyL described is pretty accurate, but I don't see it as a problem.

I think the problems usually start when comments turn personal, or posters involved in the thread *take* comments personally that weren't meant that way.

POD, I have seen the same pattern many times in threads. I think it's an interesting example of group dynamics, personally, and similar to what happens in a real-life group discussion--only easier to pick up on, because you can take the time to study the written responses. I don't think there's anything wrong with it in general and it can actually lead to a lot of interesting insights. It can certainly be inflated to extreme "dogpiling" or personal comments, but it doesn't always happen that way (or even most of the time).

I do agree that when a thread is going along with many people agreeing with one side of the argument, posters are less likely to be the one to jump in and disagree. But then one person has the nerve to do so, and then the rest who've been reading it and thinking the same thing join in.

I'm not sure what else you are implying is occuring when a thread is going one way and then turns another? That it's orchestrated for some reason?

This is what I see, too. I agree that the pattern LadyL described is pretty accurate, but I don't see it as a problem.

I think the problems usually start when comments turn personal, or posters involved in the thread *take* comments personally that weren't meant that way.

The written word is easier to misunderstand than the spoken word - there is no non-verbal communication involved, and it is impossible to gauge the intonation in the words. That's where my frustration lies sometimes!

You're right, it is easier to misunderstand the written word. So just always assume that someone who has responded to you is looking for an honest discussion, not a fight.

At its core, this is a discussion forum. That means you should always expect to have people disagree with you and/or ask for clarifications. It certainly happens that posters disagree rudely or are pushy in their requests for clarification, but I frequently see posters respond by getting defensive, which makes them look just as bad as the original rude/pushy poster. If someone disagrees with you (even with a rude tone), ignore the tone and discuss their comment (if you want). If someone is pushy in asking you to clarify something that seems obvious to you (even with a rude tone), ignore the tone and try to think of a better way to explain yourself (if you want). But don't get caught up in the tone and act offended, it serves no purpose.

Well...keeping things in perspective, maybe I was a little oversensitive, and maybe it was genuine misunderstanding. I just felt and still do, that when questioning fellow posters, a little bit of leeway should be used. I have read something once and thought one thing, and then read it back later and thought "Hey, that could mean something totally different!!" Then I feel like a jerk So maybe that's what happened, it was all just misunderstanding!?!

Hollanda - there is also a very bad habit here of dogpiling ... so when one person chimes in A LOT more will echo that thought. I had a situation where upon getting feedback on a post- I realized that I was the person worhty of E- Hell. My actions were definitely rude - although I had the best of intentions. After a few people posted - I responded that YES - I see it and I have apologized to the person I was posting about. I had probably 20 more posts after that where people where saying how awful, rude, and just a thoughtless human being I was. Regardless of how many times - I said YES .. I agree it was bad ... I've apologized can we move on..... more people chimed in. I felt like I was getting a public flogging.

I found it very frustrating. So - it happens to all of us. In the past - I've used etiquette hell as a mirror at times to look at my actions and to get objective feedback and suggestions on how to improve. I'm much more hesitant to start topics because of some of the dogliling / snarkiness that crops up and then takes off.

What I see a lot is people responding before they read the whole thread; in some cases its obvious because they ask questions already resolved in the thread. I'm not saying dog piling doesn't occur, but I think often times people get too emotional and post before reading the whole thread.

I think one of the things that has led to some of the confusion regarding suspicions is the fact that E-hell itself has evolved so much over the years.

I was bored one day, and looking at some very old posts (2006 or 2007). Things that would immediately result in a locked thread today were allowed: Sheer vents, clearly labeled as vents in the title, for example.

Not that I am saying that this is a bad thing. It does show that E-hell is growing and evolving, and I happen to think that changes are positive. It is a little surprising, however.

Logged

I have enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three cars across a sizeable desert. Which makes me officially...Three Cars Crazy

I do agree that when a thread is going along with many people agreeing with one side of the argument, posters are less likely to be the one to jump in and disagree. But then one person has the nerve to do so, and then the rest who've been reading it and thinking the same thing join in.

I'm not sure what else you are implying is occuring when a thread is going one way and then turns another? That it's orchestrated for some reason?

This is what I see, too. I agree that the pattern LadyL described is pretty accurate, but I don't see it as a problem.

I think the problems usually start when comments turn personal, or posters involved in the thread *take* comments personally that weren't meant that way.

The written word is easier to misunderstand than the spoken word - there is no non-verbal communication involved, and it is impossible to gauge the intonation in the words. That's where my frustration lies sometimes!

You're right, it is easier to misunderstand the written word. So just always assume that someone who has responded to you is looking for an honest discussion, not a fight.

At its core, this is a discussion forum. That means you should always expect to have people disagree with you and/or ask for clarifications. It certainly happens that posters disagree rudely or are pushy in their requests for clarification, but I frequently see posters respond by getting defensive, which makes them look just as bad as the original rude/pushy poster. If someone disagrees with you (even with a rude tone), ignore the tone and discuss their comment (if you want). If someone is pushy in asking you to clarify something that seems obvious to you (even with a rude tone), ignore the tone and try to think of a better way to explain yourself (if you want). But don't get caught up in the tone and act offended, it serves no purpose.

eta: Pod, Spoder.

I sometimes struggle to remember that some words have different meanings in different parts of the world. Hollanda pointed out that "barging past" someone is a colloquialism that makes sense in the UK. However, in my part of the US, we would think it meant to walk forcefully or pointedly past someone. That could look like passing someone while stomping, muttering, or otherwise giving off body language of being frustrated/rushed/angry at the person being passed. In different areas of the US there are different sayings as well that may not translate well. Remembering that Ehell is international provides a reality check for me on this. Juana and I are in the same state. I understand the confusion she experienced. The video was really helpful and clarifying.